so I look at this as a close race. If I'm an Angels fan I don't see a race at all because of defense. That said, I think Miggy finishes the season much stronger than Trout and wins the thing fair and square.

I'm out of Bolivia. Sex trafficking, kidnapping, drug running, and not a decent beer to be had. Man that sucked.

Kind of bogus if they actually wouldnt give it to Trout because he's a rookie. If he deserves it, he should get it, regardless of how many years he's been in the league. I'm an Os fan, so I have no horse in the race.

I don't think it is going to be close, even if Cabrera substantially outplays Trout the rest of the year. The media (and hence voters) love Trout's story, and how the Angels played better once he got called up.

Actually, a 5 WAR is pretty elite (puts cabrera 10th in MLB right now). Keep in mind a replcement level team wins around 45 games or so a year, meaning there is only 45-50 WARs to give to an entire playoff level team.

That may be, but that doesn't mean that WAR alone constitutes a "case closed" argument. There are a lot of people who blindly refer to a guy's WAR, like it's a statistic that came down from the heavens.

I don't like that WAR is so position-dependent. Under WAR, slugging first basemen are compared to other first basemen, which to me is only part of the comparison. They should also be compared to other sluggers, regardless of what position they play in the field. Every team needs a slugger, and every team needs a first baseman, but the two don't have to be combined.

WAR doesn't "compare" first basemen to other first basemen. It's designed to be a tool that compares players across positions. It takes raw numbers and then makes a positional adjustment to account for defensive difficulty and how hard it is to find a guy who can play a certain position. Miguel Cabrera's WAR isn't calculated by looking at other first basemen. It's calculated by looking at his numbers and then saying "we're going to adjust it X amount to account for the fact that first basemen are easy to find and defense doesn't matter that much there."

Cabrera's season was duplicated by a catcher at the player, the catcher would be more valuable for the simple reason that it's much harder to find a person who can hit like that AND do the catching still.

I don't pretend to be well versed in the baseball stat field, I know how they calculate the newish (WAR etc) stats and that's about it. I do agree with you about pitcher wins and saves, but RBI? Isn't that still runs batted in? Aren't a lot of them still a great measure of how good a hitter you are? Pitcher wins have so many other factors involved, but RBI means you hit a guy in when he was on base. That seems like one of the best possible measures if how good a hitter you are no?

"Before I could pull the trigger, I was hit by lightning, and bitten by a cobra."

Hitting with runners on base is not a different skill than hitting generally (though all hitter perform better with men on base because pitchers are pitching out of the stretch). Hitting with runners on base is just "hitting" with a giant confounding variable added in (the more often the guys in front of you are on base, the more RBI opportunities you will have).

As another poster mentioned, was Ruben Sierra a good hitter in 1993 when he drove in 101 runs? He was actually HORRENDOUS that year. He hit .233 with a .288 OBP and a .390 slugging. Those are nearly identical to Brennan Boesch's numbers this year.

you fail to mention that when i dug into sierra's #s, he was 31-101 with 10 HRs with multiple men on base. that's why he drove in so many runs. he was clutch that year. he made his hits count. if you were to ask his manager what sierra's main responsiblity was on that team, i guarantee he would say "drive in runs". and he did. he also had 50+ more runs + rbi than anyone else on that team.

far fewer. because like i said he was ridiculous with multiple men on base. in 101 AB he drove home 71 rbi, which blow your birds-eye view avgs away. you can argue that he had a "lucky" year driving in runs compared to his avgs, but he did it. an avg guy probably drives in 25-30 less runs in those 101 ABs.

the As scored about 15 runs per 100 outs, so those 25-30 extra rbi by sierra noted above would buy him a lot of outs.

WAR is a summary of a guy's avgs, on an avg team, in an avg ballpark, against avg pitchers, etc, etc. it's a good tool, but i sure wouldn't want to argue who had a better year based on that alone. it gives no credit for being a clutch hitter, great baserunner or any other intangibles.

The problem with WAR is that it's defensive component, UZR (assuming you're using fangraphs WAR), is largely useless in the sample size of a season.

Take Brett Lawrie for example, his UZR/150 is 15.7 right now, that is highly inflated because he has 59 OOZ plays on the season. That isn't because he has some ridiculous range, it's because of the shit the Blue Jays employ that allows him to make plays that a SS would normally get to, even though that play may not require even above average range to make, because of where he was positioned he gets credit for an OOZ play, boosting his UZR and boosting his WAR.

For the most part, I don't bother looking at WAR, as it is far from perfect.

Fangraphs also had an article talking about, for example, Andrew McCutchen having a negative UZR this season. His longer range sample size indicates he has a positive defensive value. This is the same as Jeter hitting in the .340's that one season. He wasn't actually a .340 value hitter, no matter what his season numbers indicated.

...but Trout, and its not that close. I am a Braves fan, so I have no dog in the fight. And offensively Cabrera is as good as anyone in baseball. But based on position and defense Trout has been a significantly more valuable player this year, by anyone's WAR-type metrics. And RBIs are dumb.

He means that they are dumb when trying to determine the value of a player. Case in point: Josh Willingham. He is currently #3 in all of baseball in RBIs, but would you say he's a top 5 hitter? Top 10? Top 20 even? Or how about Adam Dunn, who currently ranks #8 in RBIs. Is he even a top 50 hitter?

What I meant is that they are horrible at determining an individual player's value because they are so massively dependant on what the other guys on the team do. Similar to runs, pitcher win-loss record, etc, etc. There are just much, much better statistics to look at if you are trying to determine an indivual's value (OBP, Slugging, ISO, etc).

Can't you make the same argument for most, if not all, batting statistics? If you're a great hitter in a terrible lineup, you're not going to get many good pitches to hit, which will probably depress your average and slugging percentage, and so forth.

had 101 RBI with a triple slash (batting average/obp/slugging) of .233/.288/.390. He was a terrible, terrible baseball player, but he had 100 RBI because the stat is so context dependent as to be meaningless.

that said, sierra played on a bad oakland team in 1993. the fact that he drove in 101 runs is a great credit to him, despite those #s you show above. he was 31-101 with 10 HR with 2 or more men on base. the guy was clutch that year. he diserves credit for that production. the trouble is, you give no credit for actual production.

you could have 2 teammates:

player1 - .300 .400 .500 with 90 runs and 90 rbi

player2 - .280 .370 .450 with 100 runs and 100 rbi

you would say player1 had the better year based on WAR yada yada yada. i would say player2 because they were on the same team yet player2 had better actual production - scoring and driving in runs, which is how games are won.

player 1 made less outs for his team. Is this a hypothetical scenerio? Because in your hypothetical, player 2 probably had more RBI's because he probably had more guys to drive in.

Are you the type of guy who would say that a player hitting a sacrifice fly did more for his team than the guy who gets a lead off single? Because the sacrifice fly is actually more damaging to run scoring than avoiding an out with nobody on.

question 2 - no. i've never been a fan of the sacrifice fly. it should just be an out. but i do give him credit for driving that run in. i will ask you, are you the type of guy that gives no credit for guy hitting a sacrifice fly? i would say you don't because WAR, etc does not address that. it would say an out is an out, and the rbi is just a fluke.

This is why I will disagree with just this comment. If there happens to be a guy on 3rd base for both players and the one player strikes out and the other gets a sac fly...Isn't the 2nd much better?

If you don't think so because "an out is an out", then wait until your team is tied late in a game with 1 out. RBI is a bad stat for comparing two different players but it is a good stat when combined with multiple different stats. WAR is a better stat for comparison but has major flaws as well.

I'm a Tigers fan but right now Trout is the better MVP candidate. Period.

as a team stat. Take this example as a problem from an indivdual standpoint though. Nelson Cruz and his 107 wRC+ has 67 RBI's this year. Robinson Cano and his 146 wRC+ has 64 RBI's. In reality, Cano is having the superior season by a healthy margin, but RBI's would lead you to believe otherwise.

that said, cruz and cano's #s are nearly identical with men on base. and cruz has been better with 2 or more men on. so cruz is has been much more "clutch" than cano. he's getting hits when you want your guys to get hits. i choose not to penalize a hitter for that. you do.

If you're a great hitter in a lineup filled with a bunch of lousy hitters, your non team dependent stats wouldn't really be much different than if that same hitter were in a lineup filled with a bunch of great hitters.

I'm sure you can find anomolies here and there, but in general, when the objective is to outscore the other team, I don't see how you can downplay RBIs. Home runs, OK. Maybe even batting average is overrated. But RBIs . . . I disagree. We talk about how important on-base percentage is, but what good is it if the guy behind you in the order leaves you stranded?

This I can agree with, now if they made an award for the most consistent hitter in the past 3 years then I would bet Miguel would be a shoe-in for the award. He's had a great stretch to only be outdone by a different player every year, while consistently putting up MVP numbers during that time. I just hope some snarky writers don't look at Cabrera when deciding HOF voting and see that he doesn't have an MVP to go with his numbers.

Cabrera is heating up right now and all the national media is picking up on it and starting to give him his due. I've got a feeling he gets it, not only for the amazing season he is having, but also for being so consistently awesome for so long without getting an MVP. My gut says he finishes first in HR and RBI's and closes the gap on batting average.

He wins, no question. Some of the counting stats may start to get closer, as by the end of the year the percentage of games Cabrera has played compared to Trout will shrink (except for RBI's, and that is easily and justifiably explained away by saying Trout is a lead-off hitter.) Ad to it the defense, which you simply can't compare, and the story, and it should be a runaway vote. Trout's having an all-time great season.

Yeah, I'm with the general consensus here: I'm a big Cabrera homer, but I think Trout has been the better all-around player this year. If you only only look at offensive production, I think there's a better argument there for Cabrera, but MVP shouldn't just be about offensive production. It should be about the player's contributions as a whole. Due to that, Trout has the edge, assuming he maintains his numbers the rest of the way.

While it smarts a little to say that, I'd still much rather see Cabrera holding a World Series trophy than an MVP trophy, and he probably has a better shot at that than Trout. So at least he has that going for him.

One other thing working against Cabrera is the league leading number of double plays he's hit into. Cabrera is probably the most feared/respected hitter in baseball right now, but Trout is having a fantastic all around year.

Still time for MIggy to make up some ground, or for Trout to fall off though. Would love to see Cabrera win it.

Eh, that's more a testament to his lack of speed than anything else. Why would that hurt him for MVP consideration?

And I see what you're saying about Cabrera needing to make up ground, but really, there's nothing more he can do. He's having an insane year, Trout has just been more insaner in almost every way. (Yes, I know I just said more insaner.)

1. Trout needs to keep these stats up for the rest of the year. That will be difficult since he is a rookie. I have never heard of a rookie with no rookie year slump. BUT, he is different. Cabrera has a more established history of getting better as the season plays on and is consistent.

2. It is impressive to think that Cabrera put up those stats without an offense in Detroit for 1/3 of this season. Now that they are hitting, I expect him to be a stat machine.

3. Finally, speed and defense (two things that make Trout stand out, aren't weighed heavily during the MVP voting. HR, RBIs, and BA are the holy trinity. THat and some bball writers will not vote for a rookie for MVP.

If the Angels struggle and don't make the playoffs then don't expect Trout to win it over Miggy. This is part of the reason Kemp didn't win it last year and why Miguel didn't win it back in 2010. There is over a month and a half of games left so still plenty of time left to pad the stats.

bothered by the idea that a team has to make the playoffs for a player to win the MVP. If you have created the most value in your league, you're the MVP. Making the playoffs is a team deal. If Miguel Cabrera had the same season he's having now but on the Astros, he wouldn't magically be less valuable.

actually still pay attention to RBI's? What a useless stat. Anyways, I'm a huge Cabrera guy, but this race isn't even close. It's Trout in a landslide right now. Trout has a higher wOBA (advanced version of OPS that more properly weights the events of each plate appearance), gains a little advantage on the bases, plays much better defense at a more premium position, and as a result, has a higher WAR by a pretty large margin. Keep in mind, WAR is a counting stat, meaning games played can affect it. Despite starting out in AAA, Trout is still way ahead of everyone.

I would even argue that Robinson Cano is just as much in any A.L MVP race as Miguel is. Heck, I'd argue the Tigers have another position player just as valuable to the team as Miggy.

This season, Trout has gotten on base more, hit for both power and average at a better rate than Cabrera, stolen 36 bases through early August, and played great defense at a difficult position. Trout is clearly more deserving and I say this as a Tigers fan.

Trout is probably going to get MVP and the only knock I can have against him is he will play around 20 less games than Cabby. Trout is this year's MVP but Miguel Cabrera is the best player in baseball. If that makes sense.

For a' that, an' a' that,
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The man's the gowd for a' that.

Miggy is lucky Trout didn't play those extra games or he'd be even further ahead. And yes, your last statement does make sense. However, even that might be debatable considering Trout was the #1 prospect in the game. It's doubtful that his season is a fluke.

I agree and in the end, it probably won't be a huge deal. 20 Games is not all that much for a hitter. However, I do think it might come into play for the Cy Young Award as Jered Weaver and Chris Sale will probably end up pitching between 30-40 less innings than Verlander, Felix and David Price - which is a big deal IMO

For a' that, an' a' that,
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The man's the gowd for a' that.

the amount of useage you get out of a player is definately a huge part of value. There are other pitchers who pitch just as well as Verlander, but he pitches so much more than them that it makes him so much more valueable than them.

Anyone think that because Verlander won the MVP last year, it may hurt Cabrera's chances? I don't think any voters would use that as their sole reason, but if they are torn, they may think "o, well they have the reining MVP on their team, Trout is probably more important to the Angels."

I say this as a lifelong Tigers fan, if I were able to vote for the MVP right now, I would have to go with Mike Trout, and the reason, in a nutshell, is that Trout seem like the next five tool player to me. For example, whereas a fair number of offensive stats which are in the neighborhood of each other (but not all - see the OP's post, of course), the stolen bases sometimes get overlooked as a statistic in overall run production by an individual, I think. Trout outmatches Cabrera by a slight margin here (to date, of course), I think. Defensively, Trout has a better fielding percentage than Cabrera by about .2, and even though they play different positions, Trout seems more consistent to me.

Of course, there is a sizeable chunk of the season yet to play. I would certainly love to see Cabrera get be the AL MVP in the end, of course.

"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."

RBI is a meaningless stat, and the fact that he has fewer strikeouts and more walks hasn't translated into a higher OBP He has more total bases and doubles, in part, because he's played 20 more games. But WAR is a counting stat and says Trout has been worth more than 2 wins more than Cabrera, even counting the reduced playing time.

The voters also love cumulative stats, which was a big reason why Morneau won the award in 2006. Looking at advanced metrics, it's clearly Trout, but voters don't, so Cabrera's still very much in it, although Trout still has a slight advantage due to his SB number and position.

If Trout keeps up his pace, he will win because he is more "valuable" than Cabrera. However, I think his numbers will drop as teams go into overdrive for playoff contention. If you ask me, I would bet on one of the greatest hitters of this generation sustaining his numbers over a rookie.

Trout is a completely sick, unbelievable mix of speed and power. I get that he can get on base and steal bases. Lots of guys can do that. But guys with most of the numbers he has don't hit that many home runs. Cabrera is insanely good and has been crazy productive during this stretch, but Trout seems like he's once-in-a-lifetime. He's Ty Cobb good.